(IPI/IFEX) – The following is IPI’s response to a 17 May 2001 letter from Minister and Government Spokesman Oh Hong-Keun, regarding the Korean government’s harassment of the press. For your information, Oh’s letter is also included below: Mr. Oh Hong-Keun Minister and Government Spokesman Government Information Agency Seoul South Korea Vienna, 29 May 2001 Dear […]
(IPI/IFEX) – The following is IPI’s response to a 17 May 2001 letter from Minister and Government Spokesman Oh Hong-Keun, regarding the Korean government’s harassment of the press. For your information, Oh’s letter is also included below:
Mr. Oh Hong-Keun
Minister and Government Spokesman
Government Information Agency
Seoul
South Korea
Vienna, 29 May 2001
Dear Minister,
Since I have been travelling abroad, it is only now that I can answer your letter of 17 May 2001. Originally, I had in mind to send a “short” reply, mainly re-affirming the content of my letter to President Kim Dae-jung.
However, the style and content of your letter reminded of a conference jointly organised by IPI and the OSCE (an intergovernmental organisation of 55 states) entitled “Improving Communications between the Media and Public Institutions.” During that event, government spokespersons from 19 countries (mainly democracies in transition) expressed their desire to overcome a hypersensitivity to media criticism, to soften the tone of their public announcements, and to avoid the deep-rooted suspicion that the media always has a “hidden agenda.”
In consequence, I will therefore try to deal with the questions mentioned in your letter of 17 May 2001.
Honourable Minster, in your letter you wrote: “We are led to ask on what grounds you based your contention that the extension was aimed at the ‘Big Three’ newspapers.”
In my letter of 16 May to President Kim, I fairly and objectively described the original tax probe of 23 Seoul-based media companies, which was to last for 60 days. The National Tax Service, under the name of the Seoul District Tax Service, announced on 4 May that it had extended the duration of its tax probe for six leading media companies (The Chosun Ilbo, The Dong-A Ilbo and The Joong-Ang Ilbo newspapers, as well as the KBS, MBC and SBS broadcasting companies) by another 40 days, although in the end the extension involved a total of 15 media companies.
Honourable Minister, you also wrote: “You claimed that the tax audits of media companies are unprecedented.”
As you are no doubt aware regarding the public discussion in Korea over this issue, many tax experts, lawyers, academics and politicians have time and again used this term. Moreover, the international media (including the BBC) have described the probe as “the largest single audit of any single business sector” involving half of the tax bureau’s investigation team (approx. 400 tax auditors). Therefore, with the above in mind, the term “unprecedented” is certainly justified.
Honourable Minister, you furthermore asked: “We would like to know whether your letter reflects your personal opinion, was written in response to outside influences… and whether you tried to obtain the advice and opinion of Korean IPI members.”
In my opinion, this question calls for the clarification of two important points:
First, the IPI Director runs the affairs of IPI (according to statutes) and I certainly do not write to heads of state merely expressing my personal views. Input from IPI members from Korea is only one element in our global monitoring activities. We rely on our global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists, and also evaluate the wealth of facts, figures and opinions available on the Internet. In addition, we are members of the IFEX (International Freedom of Expression Exchange) Clearing House, which is made up of over 50 freedom of expression groups.
Second, when it comes to decisions regarding press freedom violations, the representatives from the respective country cannot have a vote (in order to protect them from retaliation by the authorities in their home countries). The decision by the IPI Board regarding the “IPI Watch List” will follow the same procedure.
Honourable Minister, you stated: “IPI maintained a near silence for decades when the Korean press was oppressed by authoritarian administrations.”
In response, I would like to quote President Kim Youg-sam:
“Fortunately, Korea’s democratisation movement enjoyed the strong support of the international press. The IPI, in particular, denounced the suppression of the press in Korea on many occasions, thereby bringing the harsh situation in Korea to the world’s attention, and also adopted resolutions calling for freedom of the press in Korea.”
During the same speech, President Kim said:
“Journalists have been in the forefront in charting the course of Korean history. … Media were my true friends during 40 years of struggle.” (Seoul, May 1995)
With the above quote in mind, how is it possible for a government, some years later, to denounce the very same media as a threat and obstacle to further democratisation? How can authorities use the instruments of tax inspections and investigations of bank accounts against not only media companies and their management, but also against journalists?
Regarding the equal application of laws, IPI certainly agrees that media outlets, as well as journalists, are to be treated no differently than all other institutions and citizens in Korea. But to many international observers, as well as to many Koreans, the present activities are perceived as the actions of a government intent on singling out the media for special attention.
Moreover, the Korean tax system is notoriously complex and has been already criticised by the International Monetary Fund as being unnecessarily so. As a consequence, even the best-intentioned companies have sometimes found themselves falling foul of the law. In addition, the government announced further action by the anti-trust agency, as well as measures against certain trade and marketing practices. This situation remains the background to my letter to the President.
Concerning the proposal of IPI to hold a roundtable discussion, this was made in good faith and it was IPI’s genuine intention to mediate between the government and the media on matters of concern. However, this proposal did not include discussion of the tax inspection, as your letter misinterprets.
Is this a “rude interference in internal affairs”? Korea is a member of the United Nations and UNESCO and has agreed to respect the rights to freedom of expression and of the press, as guaranteed in various treaties and other international instruments. IPI is entitled and even obliged to speak up when these principles are endangered. The ongoing activities can only be described as administrative pressure designed to intimidate the media. IPI and other institutions will continue to inform the world about this situation.
Do I need to apologise to the President for having written my letter? Certainly not! Since the President in his New Year’s press conference emphasised the need for media reform, he must be aware of the fact that the ongoing actions are not seen by the international community as appropriate means of reform. I still believe that President Kim Dae-jung should be remembered as an internationally respected personality who initiated well-designed and democratically negotiated reforms, rather than as a President whose administration was responsible for harassing the media.
Honourable Minister, I hope that I have managed to clarify some of the misunderstandings that may well have arisen in our previous exchanges of letters. You will also understand my hesitation in carrying out further exhaustive correspondence on this matter, especially since your staff seems to equate my letters of response with formal protests, but in my opinion the proposal of a roundtable discussion continues to offer a meaningful forum in which to resolve these and other issues and I would invite you to reconsider IPI’s offer.
I thank you for your kind attention.
Yours sincerely,
Johann P. Fritz
Director
Post Scriptum: We made the appropriate changes to the Internet version of the 2000 World Press Freedom Review immediately after I wrote my letter of 11 April 2001 to Mr. Kim Myong-sik, Assistant Minister and Director, Korean Information Service. We will, of course, also make available on the IPI Web site a documentation of our correspondence.
Letter of 17 May 2001 from Minister Oh Hong-Keun to IPI:
Government Information Agency
80 Susong-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul, Korea (110-733)
Oh Hong-Keun
Minister and Government Spokesman
Tel: (02) 723-0340
May 17, 2001
Johann P. Fritz
Director
International Press Institute
Spiegelgasse 2
A-1010 Vienna
Austria
Fax: 43 1-512 90 14
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Your letter of May 16 addressed to President Kim Dae-jung and expressing concern about media freedom in the Republic of Korea has been referred to me for reply.
You defined the audits by the Republic of Korea’s tax authorities on media companies as “an attempt to muzzle the critical voice of the independent press in South Korea.”
You also said that the extended audits by the National Tax Service (NTS) were aimed at “the Big Three” national dailies, Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo and Dong-A Ilbo. You then expressed your willingness to mediate the dispute between the newspapers and the Government. If the Korean Government does not resolve the issue to your satisfaction, you said you would propose at the next IPI Executive Board Meeting to place South Korea on the “IPI Watch List.”
With regard to the tax audits of media companies, a poll conducted by the Korean Federation of Press Unions, last February showed that some 64.1 percent of the Korean people and 75.4 percent of reporters agreed on the need for the probe. In an earlier opinion poll by the People’s Coalition for Media Reform and the Journalists Association of Korea, held in December 2000, some 86.9 percent said tax audits were necessary for media organizations. This proves an overwhelming support for the government action from not only general citizens but from the members of the press.
Now I would like to ask you the following questions, expecting a prompt and clear reply from you.
First, we regard what you said in your letter as rude interference in the internal affairs of the Republic of Korea and that it ignores Korean law and the state of the press as well as the pride and sentiments of the Korean people. We request that you apologize and promise that there will not be a recurrence of such an action in the future.
Second, the National Tax Service has clarified that the extension of the audits were unavoidable because 15 of the 23 media companies failed to provide the NTS with the required documents. Therefore, we are led to ask on what grounds you based your contention that the extension was aimed at the “Big Three” newspapers. We also cannot help but regard your offer as tantamount to a demand that the Government either ignore or condone wrongdoing by the owners or managers of some newspapers. With these facts in mind, how do you justify your position?
Third, you claimed that the tax audits of media companies are unprecedented. However, the Administration of President Kim Young Sam conducted an audit in 1994. It found some illegalities but did not punish the tax evaders in accordance with the law. His administration arbitrarily lowered their taxes, thus earning the public’s wrath.
The current tax audits of media companies began as the tax authorities decided that even media companies, which had long been exempted from surveillance by tax authorities, could not be exceptions under the principles of democratic law. Therefore, it cannot be the subject of mediation or compromise as you suggested in your letter.
Moreover, the decision by the Fair Trade Commission to revive the newspaper distribution guidelines reflects the critical public opinion of the unfair trade practices that are being perpetrated in the newspaper market in Korea. Regulating such unfair practices is commonly done in the United States, Japan, Germany, Canada and other countries. Therefore, isn’t it correct to say that your complaints are due to your failure to understand the local laws of Korea and the reality of the press in nations around the world?
Fourth, we would like to know whether your letter reflects your personal opinion, was written in response to outside influences, or represents the opinion of all IPI members reached through proper procedures. Would you explain how the letter came to be written and how the opinions expressed in it were gathered?
Fifth, we would appreciate it if you would clarify how you obtained information on the state of the Korean press and whether you tried to obtain the advice and opinion of Korean IPI members.
Sixth, the IPI maintained a near silence for decades when the Korean press was oppressed by the past authoritarian administrations. We would like to know why the IPI has repeatedly underestimated and distorted the state of Korean press, despite the common recognition that freedom of the press has fully bloomed in Korea since the inauguration of the current administration.
We would appreciate your prompt response.
Sincerely yours,
Oh Hong-Keun
Recommended Action
Similar appeals can be sent to:
Oh Hong-Keun
Minister and Government Spokesman
Government Information Agency
Seoul, South Korea
Tel: +02 723 0340
Please copy appeals to the source if possible.